Really Poor Wiki Article On Hard & Soft Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Test bank to Managing Human Resources 5e Gomez-Mejia, Balkin TB
Next: Jacobson's Back (was: Can thermodynamical model be fundamental...)
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 20:38 > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that > new people have to learn it also. > Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when > comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard > meaning perceived as being more scientific, What is _that_ supposed to mean? A more scientific science? That reasoning goes in a circular circle. What they mean is "lots of [explicit] math" or "more [explicit] calculations." > rigorous, Physicists must go to parochial school with old school nuns making sure they get back from recess on time! > or accurate. As stated below, lots of sig figs . . . That's _all_ they mean or can mean by "hard" science. > Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as > hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described > as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on > experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, Hard sciences would certainly be more theoretical than soft sciences, in other words, _less_ empirical. Einstein didn't conduct any empirical studies whatsoever before writing the most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century. Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > relying on the scientific > method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the > hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than > soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science A nearly worthless article. > > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science.
From: Shrikeback on 13 Jul 2010 21:28 On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. Idiot. Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. Soft sciences are those fields of study that have some of the accoutrements of sciences but really aren't sciences, so we put them in the School of Humanities. You know, such as psychology and sociology.
From: Immortalist on 13 Jul 2010 21:32 On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > > > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > > Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that > > new people have to learn it also. > > Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when > > comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard > > meaning perceived as being more scientific, > > What is _that_ supposed to mean? > > A more scientific science? > The term soft science is sometimes used to refer to branches of scientific inquiry which rely more on conjecture and qualitative analysis than rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Soft science is often used as a pejorative, differentiating it from hard science, with the implication that only hard science is real science. A number of fields could be considered soft science, including the social sciences, psychology, and anthropology, although in fact these fields represent a mix of hard and soft science. In hard science, the focal point is experiments. Researchers set up experiments which can be carefully controlled and reproduced, and they use these experiments to test a hypothesis, collecting data which can be analyzed in a variety of ways to gather information about the outcome of the experiment. Hard science relies on direct observation, and prides itself on being as balanced and unbiased as possible. The goal is to get to the facts above all else. Soft science may or may not involve experiments, depending on the field, and the experiments may be harder to control or reproduce. Psychological studies, for example, have a number of variables which cannot be controlled, making it difficult to analyze the data from such experiments, or to ask other researchers to repeat the experiment. This branch of the sciences utilizes conjecture and a more open-ended discussion, rather than sticking to clearly defined boundaries, facts, and topics, and conjectures in soft science may be unprovable with experiments and other research. Psychology is often used as an example of soft science. Some branches of psychology certainly do tend in the soft direction, since this science involves the exploration of the human mind, consciousness, and other slippery topics. However, psychologists have also managed to stage very successful experiments to test hypotheses, and these experiments have been clearly replicable, demonstrating all the traits of hard science. Some people suggest that the boundary between soft and hard science is largely artificial, and that the differences between the two may be exaggerated. Some scientists agree with this point of view, preferring to differentiate between good and bad science rather than hard and soft science, and pointing out that many of the alleged hard sciences, like physics, rely on vast leaps of logic and conjecture, especially at the higher levels. Had Einstein been limited by the confines of hard science, for example, he might never have come up with this Theory of Relativity, since the theory involved a great deal of conjecture and a scientific leap of faith when he first came up with it. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm Hard Science vs. Soft Science It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, while ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences. One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much more informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works, use it. The strict school is of course the one corresponding to, and responsible for, the soft sciences. Physicists and their ilk tend to be guided by the observation of Albert Einstein that Nature is subtle but not malicious ("Raffiniert is der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht"), so they feel justified in using anything they can come up with to unravel the subtleties and ferret out Nature's secrets (Stephen Hawking on the other hand said that "Not only does God play dice with the universe, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen," which justifies even more devious methods of scientific investigation). The strict school will have none of this - what matters is being scientific, not doing science. That is how they keep the soft sciences soft. By setting absurd standards that discourage creative thinking they inhibit our ability to understand the natural world, and thus maintain a sterile respectability. Speculation is part of science. Research that is not guided by hypothesis testing is the only way to make serendipitous discoveries. For example, who would have dared to hypothesize the existence of deep- sea vent communities fuelled by sulpher-eating bacteria, or funded the research to test such a radical and speculative hypothesis? Fortunately many scientists pay only lip service to the formal approach, and focus on knowledge, which is the real meaning of "science" (from the Latin root for knowing - in other languages the usage is the same, as with the German "Wissenschaft"). I once attended a lecture by a very severe Professor who had his students analyse 400 papers in the scientific literature, finding that only two of them followed "correct" scientific procedure. This is good news, since it means that 99.5% of scientists (398/400) disagree with him. Even so, the followers of Karl Popper have an impact and their ability to impede the progress of science should not be underestimated. Whenever a potentially useful principle raises its head in the soft sciences there will be those ready to smack it into the ground, as criticisms of the Competitive Exclusion Principle show. http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm > That reasoning goes in a circular circle. > > What they mean is "lots of [explicit] math" or "more [explicit] > calculations." > > > rigorous, > > Physicists must go to parochial school with old school nuns making > sure they get back from recess on time! > > > or accurate. > > As stated below, lots of sig figs . . . > > That's _all_ they mean or can mean by "hard" science. > > > Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as > > hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described > > as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on > > experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, > > Hard sciences would certainly be more theoretical than soft sciences, > in other words, _less_ empirical. > > Einstein didn't conduct any empirical studies whatsoever before > writing the most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century. > > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > > relying on the scientific > > method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the > > hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than > > soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science > > A nearly worthless article. > > > > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science.
From: Immortalist on 13 Jul 2010 21:36 On Jul 13, 6:28 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > Idiot. Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. > Soft sciences are those fields of study that have > some of the accoutrements of sciences but really > aren't sciences, so we put them in the School of > Humanities. You know, such as psychology and > sociology. Actually social sciences are beginning to be viewed as hard sciences as methodologies and maths have evolved greatly. This really happened a couple of decades ago. If you see any textbooks on social science research methods and methodology take a closer look, the stuff is getting as good as chemistry. The change of the soft sciences to the hard is philosophically an example of how all science is the best of human reasoning. This is another one of those instances where people hold onto old and tired views that don't apply anymore. As if things never really change. Weak.
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 22:44
> > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > Idiot. Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. What about dowsing? You have any more Lyndon LaRouche links to dowsers? Bret Cahill |